Pages

Saturday, September 24, 2011

One of the largest Southern Baptist churches in the country, Bellevue Baptist, has been recently become entangled in a thorny controversy regarding its alleged support of political candidates in the upcoming Memphis City Council Elections. Flanked by its three imposing crosses, Bellevue has not been without controversy in its treatment of LGBT people, as last year it refused to allow a lesbian team to play in its softball league.

In this most recent controversy regarding its treatment of LGBT people, Pastor Steve Gaines sent out an email alert on Tuesday of this week (which also appears on the front page of their website), calling on all Bellevue members to vote for "pro-family" city council members.

The election for City of Memphis council members is in progress, with early voting taking place now through October 1 and Election Day October 6. The Tennessee Equality Project (TEP) has made a concerted effort to unseat councilmen who voted against a TEP-supported and proposed ordinance that would have provided preferential treatment to local government employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. The ordinance did not pass.

Since that time the Tennessee state legislature and governor have passed a law that prohibits cities and municipalities from imposing a "protected class" of employees on private employers. However, the TEP is pressing their agenda with respect to government employees by working to replace councilmen who opposed their original proposed ordinances.

We are asking our people to become fully informed before voting for city council members by being aware of candidates who have supported treating ALL employees equally and do not want to put additional burden on any employer by granting certain employees a special civil rights status based on sexual preferences or gender identity/expression.

Americans United For Separation of Church and State (AU) as well as the Tennessee Equality Project (TEP) has responded to this message by Pastor Gaines; both of them demanding an investigation of whether the Church is violating IRS rules regarding endorsement of political candidates. According to Rob Boston of AU,

The Internal Revenue Service warns houses of worship about linking to campaign related sites, noting that choosing to link to another site is a proactive activity. Asserts the IRS, “An organization has control over whether it establishes a link to another site. When an organization establishes a link to another web site, the organization is responsible for the consequences of establishing and maintaining that link, even if the organization does not have control over the content of the linked site.”

(Bellevue Baptist) linked to one site that endorsed three candidates. That site happens to be run by a 501 (c)(4) organization that may legally endorse candidates. But the church, as 501 (c)(3) is subject to a different set of rules, one of which prohibits intervention in politics. (The Family Action Council of Tennessee, by the way, is an affiliate of Focus on the Family.)

The Tennessee Equality Project also has had some strong words for Pastor Gaines, stating on their blog - Grand Divisions - that not only does Pastor Gaines not embody true "family values", but that he is also using his pastoral office in an unacceptable way.

Pastor Gaines is using his bully pulpit to attack law abiding people who simply want the right to make a living in Memphis. He's also using his Bible and church to prop up his personal bias and bigotry against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Gaines lives outside Memphis city limits yet believes he should determine the fate of city elections.

Bellevue Baptist has not commented on this specific issue, yet their statement at the end of their pro-family exhortation seems to show that they believe they are free to link to such sites.

Some members have inquired regarding Bellevue's tax-exempt status. Please know that we are fully aware of the law granting tax-exempt status to churches.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

In a very badly worded article published by The Atlantic this past Monday, writer Lindsay Miller describes her experiences as a "lesbian" and then goes on to describe her feelings about being "born gay". Though the entire article is an interesting read - it seems to be based upon anecdotal stories - one specific paragraph should give readers pause.

In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way. I have dated both men and women in the past, and when I've been with men, I never had to lie back and think of Megan Fox. I still notice attractive men on the street and on television. If I were terrified of the stigma associated with homosexuality, it would have been easy enough to date men exclusively and stay in the closet my whole life.

Though Ms. Miller attempts to provide cover for her argument by stating that "not all of us" were "born this way", her argument - being from a self-identified lesbian perspective, rather than what is more clearly a bisexual one - gives credence to our oppositions argument that ones sexual orientation is easily altered.

Later in the the article, we can see Ms. Miller's point regarding the "born gay" controversy. Instead of arguing, as we are so prone to hear, that LGBT people should not have rights because they have chosen to be that way, Ms. Miller argues that all choices - no matter how society views them - should be valid under the law.

This may be Ms. Millers point, but our political opponents have glossed over this point in favor of the more controversial, are you "born gay". For example, the National Organization for Marriage has picked up on the article and has posted it proudly on its website, goading its readers to "weigh in" on the "born gay" issue. Naturally,as it normally is with NOM, the "weighing in" on this issue is blatantly one sided, with commentators comparing LGBT people with alcoholics and thieves.

Though I am sure it is unintentional, not only has Ms. Miller given cover for the opponents of LGBT equality (in that we can always "choose" to marry a member of the opposite sex); she has also given cover to the concept of "reparative therapy". If sexual orientation is a choice, individuals can change to become "normal" members of their faith and social communities. Individuals who experience "same-sex attraction" do not have to struggle with such a deviant malady; for people have the ability to switch their sexual orientation at a whim.

Ms. Miller also fails to realize that when our community says that we are "born this way", it is not a form of derision and condensation. It does not mean that straight people can feel bad for us and that we are "apologizing for who we are". Instead, it is the reality that a very large percentage of LGBT people live with; we did not "choose" to be gay, and we have an unchangeable and God-given sexual orientation, thus we deserve all of the rights given to our heterosexual counterparts.

Though Ms. Miller may be comfortable in her chosen "sexual orientation", her word choice, and her lack of scientific understanding regarding the science of sexual orientation, shows not only an immature writer, but one who does not understand that words do have consequences, and when you are perceived to speak for a group - that group will come under fire for your actions.